Changes in agonist neural drive, hypertrophy and pre-training strength all contribute to the individual strength gains after resistance training
Open accessAbstract
Whilst neural and morphological adaptations following resistance training (RT) have been investigated extensively at a group level, relatively little is known about the contribution of specific physiological mechanisms, or pre-training strength, to the individual changes in strength following training. This study investigated the contribution of multiple underpinning neural [agonist EMG (QEMGMVT), antagonist EMG (HEMGANTAG)] and morphological variables [total quadriceps volume (QUADSVOL), and muscle fascicle pennation angle (QUADSθ p)], as well as pre-training strength, to the individual changes in strength after 12 weeks of knee extensor RT. Twenty-eight healthy young men completed 12 weeks of isometric knee extensor RT (3/week). Isometric maximum voluntary torque (MVT) was assessed pre- and post-RT, as were simultaneous neural drive to the agonist (QEMGMVT) and antagonist (HEMGANTAG). In addition QUADSVOL was determined with MRI and QUADSθ p with B-mode ultrasound. Percentage changes (∆) in MVT were correlated to ∆QEMGMVT (r = 0.576, P = 0.001), ∆QUADSVOL (r = 0.461, P = 0.014), and pre-training MVT (r = −0.429, P = 0.023), but not ∆HEMGANTAG (r = 0.298, P = 0.123) or ∆QUADSθ p (r = −0.207, P = 0.291). Multiple regression analysis revealed 59.9% of the total variance in ∆MVT after RT to be explained by ∆QEMGMVT (30.6%), ∆QUADSVOL (18.7%), and pre-training MVT (10.6%). Changes in agonist neural drive, quadriceps muscle volume and pre-training strength combined to explain the majority of the variance in strength changes after knee extensor RT (~60%) and adaptations in agonist neural drive were the most important single predictor during this short-term intervention.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Changes in muscle mass are not always correlated in magnitude to changes in strength because muscle mass is not the only contributor to strength.
“We acknowledge that changes in muscle mass are not always correlated in magnitude to changes in strength measurements because muscle mass (or total mass) is not the only contributor to strength [103].”
From Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage (2021) · cites this paper as [103]
The findings of the present study are surprisingly similar to the increases in ΘP observed following short-term lower body resistance training.
“the findings of the present study are surprisingly similar to the increases in ΘP observed following short-term lower body RT (2, 10, 26, 35)”
From What makes long-term resistance-trained individuals so strong? A comparison of skeletal muscle morphology, architecture, and joint mechanics (2020) · cites this paper as [10]
Increased specific tension could be attributable to changes in neuromuscular activation or an increase in intrinsic contractile specific tension, perhaps due to a shift in muscle fiber phenotype or alterations in muscle architecture.
“Increased specific tension could be attributable to changes in neuromuscular activation [e.g., increased agonist activation (10, 60)] or an increase in the intrinsic contractile specific tension, perhaps due to a shift in muscle fiber phenotype (20) or alterations in muscle architecture (24).”
From What makes long-term resistance-trained individuals so strong? A comparison of skeletal muscle morphology, architecture, and joint mechanics (2020) · cites this paper as [10]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 60 · Cited by 109
- Authors
- Balshaw, T. G., Massey, G. J., Maden-Wilkinson, T. M., Morales-Artacho, A. J., McKeown, A., Appleby, C. L., & Folland, J. P.
- Affiliations
- Loughborough University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Balshaw, Thomas G.
- Venue
- European Journal of Applied Physiology
- Published
- 2017-02-26
- Volume
- 117
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 631-640
- ISSN
- 0020-9376 (ISSN-L)
- 1439-6319
- 1439-6327
- OpenAlex
- W2589162984
- Cited by
- 109
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 4
- FWCI
- 12.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- European Journal of Applied Physiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- SHURA (Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive) (Sheffield Hallam University) (acceptedVersion)
- Loughborough University Institutional Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Loughborough University
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
- Keywords
- resistance training, strength gain, neural drive, muscle hypertrophy, individual differences
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Humans, Isometric Contraction, Male, Random Allocation, Case-Control Studies, Evoked Potentials, Motor, Quadriceps Muscle, Muscle Strength, Resistance Training
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review